Lokayukta challenged a Tribunal order quashing entrustment of a disciplinary enquiry against a retired Deputy Tahsildar as time-barred under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) KCSRs. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's view and dismissed the writ petition, also citing four years' unexplained delay in filing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:12475-DB WP No. 31033 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 31033 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MADHU KIRAN JAGGA, ADV. SRI JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2026:KHC:12475-DB WP No. 31033 of 2024
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O. LATE. MOHAMMED KHASIM SAB, RETIRED DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, R/AT ANNAPOORNESHWARI TEMPLE ROAD, NEAR TALUK OFFICE, HIRIYURU, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577598.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 RO R5)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KSAT BENGALURU IN A.NO.1007/2018 DATED 18.09.2020 (ANNEXURE-B) BY ISSUING APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)
This writ petition is filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta challenging the order dated 18.09.2020 passed in Application No.1007/2018 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).
HC-KAR
report dated 21.04.2017, and also seeking a direction to release the DCRG and the commuted value of pension along with interest.
2.1 The Tribunal, upon considering that the articles of charge were issued beyond four years from the date of retirement and were therefore barred under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules (KCSRs), set aside the order of entrustment and the enquiry report, and directed the authorities to disburse the DCRG and the commuted value of pension within three months.
HC-KAR
Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5, supports the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5, it is to be noticed that respondent No.6 retired from service on 31.03.2014, whereas the articles of charge were issued on 18.08.2015. The incident in respect of which the articles of charge were issued pertains to the year 2011. The Tribunal, having regard to the aforesaid dates, has rightly held that the enquiry is not permissible in view of Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the KCSRs.
NC: 2026:KHC:12475-DB WP No. 31033 of 2024
HC-KAR
dismissed .
Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE
Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
2 issues framed by the court
Whether disciplinary enquiry initiated by articles of charge issued beyond four years after retirement is barred under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) KCSRs.
Whether the writ petition filed four years after the Tribunal's order is barred by delay and laches.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Registrar Karnataka Lokayukta
State of Karnataka rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department
The Regional Commissioner
The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District
The Principal Secretary Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Karamathulla
S.G.Pandit
K. V. Aravind
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
